New 20mph zones - coming to a Hertfordshire street near you

The council’s new speed management strategy will increase the number of roads eligible for 20mph limits.

These amendments have been welcomed by the county’s Liberal Democrats, who say they have been calling for this relaxation of rules to create 20mph zones.

Stephen Giles-Medhurst, leader of the county’s opposition group, said: "Many local residents groups are concerned about reckless drivers and how they use the roads in areas where many pedestrians need to cross and use roads.

"Drivers travelling at 30mph or 40mph just don't have the stopping time needed if a child darts out into a road or if another pedestrian has a momentary lapse and steps out not spotting oncoming traffic.

"By having 20mph zones in specific and appropriate areas this will make our roads safer for all road users and pedestrians alike.

He added: "The Liberal Democrat group are of course delighted that this change is finally coming to pass.

"For us the only sour note is that it has taken so long for it to happen and that the Conservatives did not agree to our budget plans, which would have made huge savings from the bloated team of media spin doctors at County Hall and invested that money in Highways and road safety schemes - so really making a difference and saving lives."

The county will now use the average speed of cars travelling in an area to determine whether it will be suitable for a 20mph zones.

Simon Hoggett, spokesman for Hertfordshire County Council, said: "The new speed management strategy increases the number of roads eligible for 20mph limits and zones without the requirement for physical measures.

Share article

"Using mean speeds for determining speed limits will also make it simpler for 20mph zones to be created in residential areas, where appropriate and if the idea is supported by the local community.

"It is clear that people are concerned about speeding traffic and this strategy will provide the framework for putting the appropriate limits in place."

Promoted Stories

Comments (32)

If the worry is reckless drivers, who do not respect a 30mph limit, then what difference does it make to them if the limit were 20 or even 10?

If the worry is reckless drivers, who do not respect a 30mph limit, then what difference does it make to them if the limit were 20 or even 10?Nascot

If the worry is reckless drivers, who do not respect a 30mph limit, then what difference does it make to them if the limit were 20 or even 10?

Score: 11

Wacko Jacko says...8:12pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Good news for the residents of Watford, we need 20 limits in all residential areas

Good news for the residents of Watford, we need 20 limits in all residential areasWacko Jacko

Good news for the residents of Watford, we need 20 limits in all residential areas

Score: -11

GWH123 says...8:40pm Wed 23 Apr 14

We really don't.

We really don't.GWH123

We really don't.

Score: 3

GWH123 says...8:42pm Wed 23 Apr 14

It's hard enough to drive around here at the best of times, it would make it unbearable.

It's hard enough to drive around here at the best of times, it would make it unbearable.GWH123

It's hard enough to drive around here at the best of times, it would make it unbearable.

Score: 0

QUINNPT says...8:45pm Wed 23 Apr 14

So if it was a liberal county council, would they be making the same point?. I suggest while the liberals may have a point, they should look at their own administration first before making childish remarks about others. On speed restrictions, good news but please make them enforceable eg do not use speed humps, use speed cameras at the entry of them and exit of them.

So if it was a liberal county council, would they be making the same point?.
I suggest while the liberals may have a point, they should look at their own administration first before making childish remarks about others.
On speed restrictions, good news but please make them enforceable eg do not use speed humps, use speed cameras at the entry of them and exit of them.QUINNPT

So if it was a liberal county council, would they be making the same point?. I suggest while the liberals may have a point, they should look at their own administration first before making childish remarks about others. On speed restrictions, good news but please make them enforceable eg do not use speed humps, use speed cameras at the entry of them and exit of them.

Score: 3

Nascot says...11:49pm Wed 23 Apr 14

QUINNPT wrote…

So if it was a liberal county council, would they be making the same point?. I suggest while the liberals may have a point, they should look at their own administration first before making childish remarks about others. On speed restrictions, good news but please make them enforceable eg do not use speed humps, use speed cameras at the entry of them and exit of them.

Suggest you research the legal criteria for where speed cameras can be installed before you comment

[quote][p][bold]QUINNPT[/bold] wrote:
So if it was a liberal county council, would they be making the same point?.
I suggest while the liberals may have a point, they should look at their own administration first before making childish remarks about others.
On speed restrictions, good news but please make them enforceable eg do not use speed humps, use speed cameras at the entry of them and exit of them.[/p][/quote]Suggest you research the legal criteria for where speed cameras can be installed before you commentNascot

QUINNPT wrote…

So if it was a liberal county council, would they be making the same point?. I suggest while the liberals may have a point, they should look at their own administration first before making childish remarks about others. On speed restrictions, good news but please make them enforceable eg do not use speed humps, use speed cameras at the entry of them and exit of them.

Suggest you research the legal criteria for where speed cameras can be installed before you comment

Score: 0

John Dowdle says...3:46am Thu 24 Apr 14

More short-termist thinking from the Hertford County Liberal Democrats. I recently drove into London and ended up driving through Camden, where even the main roads are limited to 20 miles per hour. Ridiculous! You are driving permanently in second gear, using much more petrol and causing much more pollution. Just where is the empirical evidence to support introducing these zones? Frankly, this scheme is redolent of the typical empty-headed Lib Dem approach towards what they call pavement politics: all style and no substance. All they can think of is just how many pictures they will be able to take of themselves posing next to new signs for their propaganda sheets. It will not actually achieve anything worthwhile but it will provide them with an opportunity to appear as though they are doing something while actually doing nothing - just as they like it. There is an enormous vacuity at the heart of the present-day Liberal Democrats. There was a time - for example, when the Young Liberals ran anti-apartheid campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s - when their strand of politics could be seen as admirable. Not anymore. Today, it is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.

More short-termist thinking from the Hertford County Liberal Democrats.
I recently drove into London and ended up driving through Camden, where even the main roads are limited to 20 miles per hour. Ridiculous! You are driving permanently in second gear, using much more petrol and causing much more pollution.
Just where is the empirical evidence to support introducing these zones?
Frankly, this scheme is redolent of the typical empty-headed Lib Dem approach towards what they call pavement politics: all style and no substance.
All they can think of is just how many pictures they will be able to take of themselves posing next to new signs for their propaganda sheets.
It will not actually achieve anything worthwhile but it will provide them with an opportunity to appear as though they are doing something while actually doing nothing - just as they like it.
There is an enormous vacuity at the heart of the present-day Liberal Democrats. There was a time - for example, when the Young Liberals ran anti-apartheid campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s - when their strand of politics could be seen as admirable. Not anymore.
Today, it is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.John Dowdle

More short-termist thinking from the Hertford County Liberal Democrats. I recently drove into London and ended up driving through Camden, where even the main roads are limited to 20 miles per hour. Ridiculous! You are driving permanently in second gear, using much more petrol and causing much more pollution. Just where is the empirical evidence to support introducing these zones? Frankly, this scheme is redolent of the typical empty-headed Lib Dem approach towards what they call pavement politics: all style and no substance. All they can think of is just how many pictures they will be able to take of themselves posing next to new signs for their propaganda sheets. It will not actually achieve anything worthwhile but it will provide them with an opportunity to appear as though they are doing something while actually doing nothing - just as they like it. There is an enormous vacuity at the heart of the present-day Liberal Democrats. There was a time - for example, when the Young Liberals ran anti-apartheid campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s - when their strand of politics could be seen as admirable. Not anymore. Today, it is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.

Score: 1

Cuetip says...8:29am Thu 24 Apr 14

John Dowdle wrote…

More short-termist thinking from the Hertford County Liberal Democrats. I recently drove into London and ended up driving through Camden, where even the main roads are limited to 20 miles per hour. Ridiculous! You are driving permanently in second gear, using much more petrol and causing much more pollution. Just where is the empirical evidence to support introducing these zones? Frankly, this scheme is redolent of the typical empty-headed Lib Dem approach towards what they call pavement politics: all style and no substance. All they can think of is just how many pictures they will be able to take of themselves posing next to new signs for their propaganda sheets. It will not actually achieve anything worthwhile but it will provide them with an opportunity to appear as though they are doing something while actually doing nothing - just as they like it. There is an enormous vacuity at the heart of the present-day Liberal Democrats. There was a time - for example, when the Young Liberals ran anti-apartheid campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s - when their strand of politics could be seen as admirable. Not anymore. Today, it is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.

So much of politics is patronising and as you say 'is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.'

[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote:
More short-termist thinking from the Hertford County Liberal Democrats.
I recently drove into London and ended up driving through Camden, where even the main roads are limited to 20 miles per hour. Ridiculous! You are driving permanently in second gear, using much more petrol and causing much more pollution.
Just where is the empirical evidence to support introducing these zones?
Frankly, this scheme is redolent of the typical empty-headed Lib Dem approach towards what they call pavement politics: all style and no substance.
All they can think of is just how many pictures they will be able to take of themselves posing next to new signs for their propaganda sheets.
It will not actually achieve anything worthwhile but it will provide them with an opportunity to appear as though they are doing something while actually doing nothing - just as they like it.
There is an enormous vacuity at the heart of the present-day Liberal Democrats. There was a time - for example, when the Young Liberals ran anti-apartheid campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s - when their strand of politics could be seen as admirable. Not anymore.
Today, it is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.[/p][/quote]So much of politics is patronising and as you say 'is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.'Cuetip

John Dowdle wrote…

More short-termist thinking from the Hertford County Liberal Democrats. I recently drove into London and ended up driving through Camden, where even the main roads are limited to 20 miles per hour. Ridiculous! You are driving permanently in second gear, using much more petrol and causing much more pollution. Just where is the empirical evidence to support introducing these zones? Frankly, this scheme is redolent of the typical empty-headed Lib Dem approach towards what they call pavement politics: all style and no substance. All they can think of is just how many pictures they will be able to take of themselves posing next to new signs for their propaganda sheets. It will not actually achieve anything worthwhile but it will provide them with an opportunity to appear as though they are doing something while actually doing nothing - just as they like it. There is an enormous vacuity at the heart of the present-day Liberal Democrats. There was a time - for example, when the Young Liberals ran anti-apartheid campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s - when their strand of politics could be seen as admirable. Not anymore. Today, it is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.

So much of politics is patronising and as you say 'is all just show and no substance. Like these proposed zones.'

Score: -5

LocalBoy1 says...10:52am Thu 24 Apr 14

Nascot wrote…

If the worry is reckless drivers, who do not respect a 30mph limit, then what difference does it make to them if the limit were 20 or even 10?

It makes no difference at all to those who are intent on flaunting the law. Where I live in a quiet residential area, it is 20mph, there are speed bumps and a 7.5ton GW restriction. plus width restrictors with a bus only lane. ALL of these traffic controls are disobeyed frequently.

[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote:
If the worry is reckless drivers, who do not respect a 30mph limit, then what difference does it make to them if the limit were 20 or even 10?[/p][/quote]It makes no difference at all to those who are intent on flaunting the law. Where I live in a quiet residential area, it is 20mph, there are speed bumps and a 7.5ton GW restriction. plus width restrictors with a bus only lane. ALL of these traffic controls are disobeyed frequently.LocalBoy1

Nascot wrote…

If the worry is reckless drivers, who do not respect a 30mph limit, then what difference does it make to them if the limit were 20 or even 10?

It makes no difference at all to those who are intent on flaunting the law. Where I live in a quiet residential area, it is 20mph, there are speed bumps and a 7.5ton GW restriction. plus width restrictors with a bus only lane. ALL of these traffic controls are disobeyed frequently.

Score: -4

WatfordBandB says...11:01am Thu 24 Apr 14

No problem with this what so ever. The roads in Watford are in such disrepair I drive slow now anyway, ie well below the speed limit. AND the traffic is so bad that you have to drive at snail pace any way. Watford, the town I was born and bread in and loved all my life is the biggest ....hole around now. The Council has seen to that, have you also observed what a joke the new high street works are??? Lets clog Watford up even more, come on more houses, more people... Economy, economy economy!!!

No problem with this what so ever. The roads in Watford are in such disrepair I drive slow now anyway, ie well below the speed limit. AND the traffic is so bad that you have to drive at snail pace any way. Watford, the town I was born and bread in and loved all my life is the biggest ....hole around now. The Council has seen to that, have you also observed what a joke the new high street works are???
Lets clog Watford up even more, come on more houses, more people...
Economy, economy economy!!!WatfordBandB

No problem with this what so ever. The roads in Watford are in such disrepair I drive slow now anyway, ie well below the speed limit. AND the traffic is so bad that you have to drive at snail pace any way. Watford, the town I was born and bread in and loved all my life is the biggest ....hole around now. The Council has seen to that, have you also observed what a joke the new high street works are??? Lets clog Watford up even more, come on more houses, more people... Economy, economy economy!!!

Score: -2

garston tony says...12:50pm Thu 24 Apr 14

I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea

I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about!
But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking.
The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad ideagarston tony

I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea

Score: 12

Wacko Jacko says...5:12pm Thu 24 Apr 14

A voice of sanity from Garston Tony in amongst the knee-jerk negativity of the others. Interesting that Dowdle has such reactionary views, particularly as he's standing as a Green candidate in the May elections

A voice of sanity from Garston Tony in amongst the knee-jerk negativity of the others. Interesting that Dowdle has such reactionary views, particularly as he's standing as a Green candidate in the May electionsWacko Jacko

A voice of sanity from Garston Tony in amongst the knee-jerk negativity of the others. Interesting that Dowdle has such reactionary views, particularly as he's standing as a Green candidate in the May elections

Score: 7

John Dowdle says...10:58pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Iain Sharpe, standing for the unloved Liberal Democrats in Oxhey, who once said a road going through Oxhey Park would be "over his dead body" has the unmitigated gall to be standing again for election, even though he has clearly and publicly gone back on his pledge to Oxhey voters. Cant and hypocrisy are nothing new to him, it seems. As for Tony, I do not altogether dispute what he is saying but as he points out, what is needed is real empirical evidence that introducing 20 mph zones really will make any difference. So far, no one has provided this. Introducing these new zone - with all the costs involved - without providing any empirical evidence to support the changes is completely typical of Iain Sharpe and his like-wise light-minded colleagues. Again, all show and no substance - as usual, from the blunt tool in the box.

Iain Sharpe, standing for the unloved Liberal Democrats in Oxhey, who once said a road going through Oxhey Park would be "over his dead body" has the unmitigated gall to be standing again for election, even though he has clearly and publicly gone back on his pledge to Oxhey voters.
Cant and hypocrisy are nothing new to him, it seems.
As for Tony, I do not altogether dispute what he is saying but as he points out, what is needed is real empirical evidence that introducing 20 mph zones really will make any difference. So far, no one has provided this.
Introducing these new zone - with all the costs involved - without providing any empirical evidence to support the changes is completely typical of Iain Sharpe and his like-wise light-minded colleagues.
Again, all show and no substance - as usual, from the blunt tool in the box.John Dowdle

Iain Sharpe, standing for the unloved Liberal Democrats in Oxhey, who once said a road going through Oxhey Park would be "over his dead body" has the unmitigated gall to be standing again for election, even though he has clearly and publicly gone back on his pledge to Oxhey voters. Cant and hypocrisy are nothing new to him, it seems. As for Tony, I do not altogether dispute what he is saying but as he points out, what is needed is real empirical evidence that introducing 20 mph zones really will make any difference. So far, no one has provided this. Introducing these new zone - with all the costs involved - without providing any empirical evidence to support the changes is completely typical of Iain Sharpe and his like-wise light-minded colleagues. Again, all show and no substance - as usual, from the blunt tool in the box.

Score: -5

Bobbio says...10:46am Fri 25 Apr 14

The Council has made its mind up without consulting the people. Look what happened when Birmingham consulted (information from the website of the Alliance of British Drivers) Last summer council leader Albert Bore pledged to roll-out 20mph limits across the city’s residential streets. But councillors heard this week that a public consultation had found that 58% of the 3,565 respondents opposed the council’s plans, with just 39% in favour. Support rose to 44% when the public was asked about having 20mph on residential areas, 49% on high streets and other shopping areas, and 91% near schools. Why weren't' Herts residents consulted?

The Council has made its mind up without consulting the people. Look what happened when Birmingham consulted (information from the website of the Alliance of British Drivers)
Last summer council leader Albert Bore pledged to roll-out 20mph limits across the city’s residential streets. But councillors heard this week that a public consultation had found that 58% of the 3,565 respondents opposed the council’s plans, with just 39% in favour. Support rose to 44% when the public was asked about having 20mph on residential areas, 49% on high streets and other shopping areas, and 91% near schools.
Why weren't' Herts residents consulted?Bobbio

The Council has made its mind up without consulting the people. Look what happened when Birmingham consulted (information from the website of the Alliance of British Drivers) Last summer council leader Albert Bore pledged to roll-out 20mph limits across the city’s residential streets. But councillors heard this week that a public consultation had found that 58% of the 3,565 respondents opposed the council’s plans, with just 39% in favour. Support rose to 44% when the public was asked about having 20mph on residential areas, 49% on high streets and other shopping areas, and 91% near schools. Why weren't' Herts residents consulted?

Score: 0

D_Penn says...11:10am Fri 25 Apr 14

I went to a 'Twenty's Plenty' meeting not so long ago. It was admitted that there was no empirical evidence whatsoever that 30mph was unsafe or that implementing 20mph on Watford's side roads would stop a single accident!. The secondary question of why 20mph rather than 25mph or 15mph had been chosen could not be answered with any technical reasons or results of studies other than to comment it was a 'simple figure people would understand' and, I suppose, it provided a catchy rhyme for the campaign as well. What was particularly annoying was that no evidence of even one accident being caused by somebody driving at thirty instead of twenty could be provided. In fact, nobody has presented any record about any accidents on our side roads to back up the claim that Watford's roads would become wonderfully safer overnight! It was clear that 20mph was just a figure that had been plucked out of the air. What we are seeing here is typical of the modern times where safety is like a religion to some people who go around looking for ways to make something safer that had never been unsafe in the first place! The trouble for all of us who like to think a bit deeper about these things is that to oppose a speed limit reduction is always difficult because those who are determined to have their way always try to make it seem like by arguing against them that you are supporting a slaughter of pedestrians. Of course, that is not the case. We all want safe roads but that has to be balanced with society wanting to use cars and for them to be efficient modes of transport with minimum pollution (another killer that rises as cars go slower). The truth is that cars will never be safe unless the speed limit is set to zero mph. Now I'm all for speed reduction in specific areas where it can be shown to be dangerous, such as outside schools, but a blanket reduction across the board is just a complete over-reaction, trying to solve a non-existent problem. If we don't get these well meaning people to think a bit more before getting on the campaign trail, logically it is only a matter of time before we will end up back to the days when every car had someone walking in front of it with a red flag- safe yes, but ridiculous!

I went to a 'Twenty's Plenty' meeting not so long ago. It was admitted that there was no empirical evidence whatsoever that 30mph was unsafe or that implementing 20mph on Watford's side roads would stop a single accident!. The secondary question of why 20mph rather than 25mph or 15mph had been chosen could not be answered with any technical reasons or results of studies other than to comment it was a 'simple figure people would understand' and, I suppose, it provided a catchy rhyme for the campaign as well.
What was particularly annoying was that no evidence of even one accident being caused by somebody driving at thirty instead of twenty could be provided. In fact, nobody has presented any record about any accidents on our side roads to back up the claim that Watford's roads would become wonderfully safer overnight! It was clear that 20mph was just a figure that had been plucked out of the air.
What we are seeing here is typical of the modern times where safety is like a religion to some people who go around looking for ways to make something safer that had never been unsafe in the first place! The trouble for all of us who like to think a bit deeper about these things is that to oppose a speed limit reduction is always difficult because those who are determined to have their way always try to make it seem like by arguing against them that you are supporting a slaughter of pedestrians.
Of course, that is not the case. We all want safe roads but that has to be balanced with society wanting to use cars and for them to be efficient modes of transport with minimum pollution (another killer that rises as cars go slower).
The truth is that cars will never be safe unless the speed limit is set to zero mph. Now I'm all for speed reduction in specific areas where it can be shown to be dangerous, such as outside schools, but a blanket reduction across the board is just a complete over-reaction, trying to solve a non-existent problem. If we don't get these well meaning people to think a bit more before getting on the campaign trail, logically it is only a matter of time before we will end up back to the days when every car had someone walking in front of it with a red flag- safe yes, but ridiculous!D_Penn

I went to a 'Twenty's Plenty' meeting not so long ago. It was admitted that there was no empirical evidence whatsoever that 30mph was unsafe or that implementing 20mph on Watford's side roads would stop a single accident!. The secondary question of why 20mph rather than 25mph or 15mph had been chosen could not be answered with any technical reasons or results of studies other than to comment it was a 'simple figure people would understand' and, I suppose, it provided a catchy rhyme for the campaign as well. What was particularly annoying was that no evidence of even one accident being caused by somebody driving at thirty instead of twenty could be provided. In fact, nobody has presented any record about any accidents on our side roads to back up the claim that Watford's roads would become wonderfully safer overnight! It was clear that 20mph was just a figure that had been plucked out of the air. What we are seeing here is typical of the modern times where safety is like a religion to some people who go around looking for ways to make something safer that had never been unsafe in the first place! The trouble for all of us who like to think a bit deeper about these things is that to oppose a speed limit reduction is always difficult because those who are determined to have their way always try to make it seem like by arguing against them that you are supporting a slaughter of pedestrians. Of course, that is not the case. We all want safe roads but that has to be balanced with society wanting to use cars and for them to be efficient modes of transport with minimum pollution (another killer that rises as cars go slower). The truth is that cars will never be safe unless the speed limit is set to zero mph. Now I'm all for speed reduction in specific areas where it can be shown to be dangerous, such as outside schools, but a blanket reduction across the board is just a complete over-reaction, trying to solve a non-existent problem. If we don't get these well meaning people to think a bit more before getting on the campaign trail, logically it is only a matter of time before we will end up back to the days when every car had someone walking in front of it with a red flag- safe yes, but ridiculous!

Score: 3

John Dowdle says...11:41am Fri 25 Apr 14

When I lived in the USA in the 1970s, they had school zones, where a mandatory speed limit of 15 mph was imposed, with flashing amber lights underneath the signs to alert drivers to the fact that they were entering a school zone. These school zones were rigorously enforced, which was fair enough because young and very young children have a much reduced ability to estimate the speeds at which vehicles travel. In this country, we also have lollipop men and women to ensure the safety of children around school areas. All this is well and good, and makes complete sense but to make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone does not. The Lib Dems - and now the Tories - are falling prey to the nanny state syndrome, it seems to me. The vast majority of drivers are sensible and drive according to the circumstances of the road. Let's stop wasting money on senseless vanity projects; there are already far too many of these in the Watford area as it is. It is simply not possible to create a totally risk-free world, much as some people may wish for it. Spend money on better education for all, including education on road safety for all.

When I lived in the USA in the 1970s, they had school zones, where a mandatory speed limit of 15 mph was imposed, with flashing amber lights underneath the signs to alert drivers to the fact that they were entering a school zone. These school zones were rigorously enforced, which was fair enough because young and very young children have a much reduced ability to estimate the speeds at which vehicles travel. In this country, we also have lollipop men and women to ensure the safety of children around school areas.
All this is well and good, and makes complete sense but to make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone does not.
The Lib Dems - and now the Tories - are falling prey to the nanny state syndrome, it seems to me. The vast majority of drivers are sensible and drive according to the circumstances of the road. Let's stop wasting money on senseless vanity projects; there are already far too many of these in the Watford area as it is. It is simply not possible to create a totally risk-free world, much as some people may wish for it. Spend money on better education for all, including education on road safety for all.John Dowdle

When I lived in the USA in the 1970s, they had school zones, where a mandatory speed limit of 15 mph was imposed, with flashing amber lights underneath the signs to alert drivers to the fact that they were entering a school zone. These school zones were rigorously enforced, which was fair enough because young and very young children have a much reduced ability to estimate the speeds at which vehicles travel. In this country, we also have lollipop men and women to ensure the safety of children around school areas. All this is well and good, and makes complete sense but to make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone does not. The Lib Dems - and now the Tories - are falling prey to the nanny state syndrome, it seems to me. The vast majority of drivers are sensible and drive according to the circumstances of the road. Let's stop wasting money on senseless vanity projects; there are already far too many of these in the Watford area as it is. It is simply not possible to create a totally risk-free world, much as some people may wish for it. Spend money on better education for all, including education on road safety for all.

Score: -4

Wacko Jacko says...4:31pm Fri 25 Apr 14

What an ignorant lot you are. The changes in Herts policy merely serve to bring them into line with latest DfT guidance which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/setting-local-spe ed-limits There has been no move by Herts County to 'make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone' as Johnny Doodle says, the main change is to base the qualifying criteria for 20 zones on average speeds rather than 85th percentiles. The new rules say that if roads already have average speeds of 25mph or below then they could be eligible to become 20 zones, subject of course to consultation and public support. However contributors may remember that Watford Council has twice voted for the town to have default 20 limits in all residential areas. These votes attracted unanimous support from the all of the main political groups, including Greens, so Doodle is out of step on this one with his own party. Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round. It's worth noting that across much of continental Europe the speed limit in residential areas is 30KPH which is around 18MPH, I understand that this won't cut any ice with the swivel-eyed supporters of Nigel Fromage. However, for those other readers who have their heads up in the air rather than stuck somewhere dark and unmentionable, empirical evidence can be found here: http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf and on countless other road safety websites

What an ignorant lot you are. The changes in Herts policy merely serve to bring them into line with latest DfT guidance which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/publicatio
ns/setting-local-spe
ed-limits
There has been no move by Herts County to 'make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone' as Johnny Doodle says, the main change is to base the qualifying criteria for 20 zones on average speeds rather than 85th percentiles. The new rules say that if roads already have average speeds of 25mph or below then they could be eligible to become 20 zones, subject of course to consultation and public support.
However contributors may remember that Watford Council has twice voted for the town to have default 20 limits in all residential areas. These votes attracted unanimous support from the all of the main political groups, including Greens, so Doodle is out of step on this one with his own party. Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round.
It's worth noting that across much of continental Europe the speed limit in residential areas is 30KPH which is around 18MPH, I understand that this won't cut any ice with the swivel-eyed supporters of Nigel Fromage. However, for those other readers who have their heads up in the air rather than stuck somewhere dark and unmentionable, empirical evidence can be found here: http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advice/h
ighway/info/20-mph-z
one-factsheet.pdf and on countless other road safety websitesWacko Jacko

What an ignorant lot you are. The changes in Herts policy merely serve to bring them into line with latest DfT guidance which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/setting-local-spe ed-limits There has been no move by Herts County to 'make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone' as Johnny Doodle says, the main change is to base the qualifying criteria for 20 zones on average speeds rather than 85th percentiles. The new rules say that if roads already have average speeds of 25mph or below then they could be eligible to become 20 zones, subject of course to consultation and public support. However contributors may remember that Watford Council has twice voted for the town to have default 20 limits in all residential areas. These votes attracted unanimous support from the all of the main political groups, including Greens, so Doodle is out of step on this one with his own party. Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round. It's worth noting that across much of continental Europe the speed limit in residential areas is 30KPH which is around 18MPH, I understand that this won't cut any ice with the swivel-eyed supporters of Nigel Fromage. However, for those other readers who have their heads up in the air rather than stuck somewhere dark and unmentionable, empirical evidence can be found here: http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf and on countless other road safety websites

Score: 3

John Dowdle says...5:25pm Fri 25 Apr 14

It is good to see we are all getting under Iain Sharpe’s skin, even though he lacks the courage to put his own name to his own silly rants. The link provided above to the Department of Transport is primarily guidance on how to introduce speed limit zones rather than any basis for explaining why they should be introduced. The first opening line starts ‘Speed limits should be evidence-led…’. Iain Sharp has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, just like his Lib Dem counterparts at County Hall. Yet again, they are all asleep at the wheel – as always. According to the Association of British Drivers, ‘Wide Area 20mph Zones are a Waste of Money and Won't Save Lives….Those towns and cities such as Portsmouth where blanket 20mph zones have been imposed have not demonstrated any benefits in accident reduction — Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) actually rose in Portsmouth after implementation despite a reduction in the rest of the country. Similar reports have come in from Bristol, Oxford and Warrington. There is no demonstrable benefit from simply putting up 20mph signs and the Department for Transport have said exactly the same thing in the past. Source: http://www.abd.org.u k/pr/795.htm. A 2008 report prepared for Transport for London found that ‘The cost effectiveness analysis suggested that the benefits (in terms of casualties prevented) of 20 mph zones implemented in high casualty areas are greater than the costs of implementation, whereas those in low casualty areas are not. The results show that 20 mph zones become cost effective when a road has over 0.7 casualties per km.’ Source: http://www.tfl.gov.u k/cdn/static/cms/doc uments/20-mph-zones- and-road-safety-in-l ondon.pdf. Can Iain Sharpe provide relevant statistics to support his demand for 20 mph zones in Watford? Part of the conclusion to the report stated ‘Given the increasing popularity of 20 mph zones as a method of reducing speed, there is a real need for good evidence on their impact on collision and casualty rates.’ A 2012 Department of Transport report publicised by The Sun concluded “CONTROVERSIAL 20mph speed limits designed to cut road casualties are not working, official figures show. The 24 per cent rise in all casualties on 20 mph roads is noticeably different from the change in all other road types, most of which saw a slight fall in casualty numbers. This is actually consistent with a trend going back to at least 2007. There are further links and comment on the same web site source https://fullfact.org /articles/road_safet y_20mph_zones_limits _casualties-27766. Overall, this evidence suggests that the case for 20 mph zones is mixed, to say the very least, and that the Liberal Democrats may be arguing in support of a policy which could end up killing and maiming more people, rather than less. Before embarking upon another one of their vanity projects which could end up costing lives and huge emotional upset for many people, all we are asking is that they apply themselves soberly and sensibly towards evaluating the actual research evidence available elsewhere. What is truly bizarre is to see these self-styled “liberal” advocates acting as cheer leaders for a nanny state. John Stuart Mill must be spinning in his grave. Jeremy Bentham may also be fidgeting on his seat in the LSE too right now, I imagine. In the old testament, there is a saying about someone selling their birthright for a mess of potage. Iain Sharp and his Lib Dem chums seem utterly fixated in dumping their original liberal beliefs in order to act as cheer leaders for a new fascist nanny state. I – like many others – am fully open-minded on the issue of speed control zones. If irrefutable evidence can be produced as to the effectiveness of 20 mph zones in saving lives and reducing distress, I will be more than happy to support them but people like Sharp and his fellow Lib Dems seem more interested in new photo opportunities than they do in the welfare of the general public.

It is good to see we are all getting under Iain Sharpe’s skin, even though he lacks the courage to put his own name to his own silly rants.
The link provided above to the Department of Transport is primarily guidance on how to introduce speed limit zones rather than any basis for explaining why they should be introduced. The first opening line starts ‘Speed limits should be evidence-led…’.
Iain Sharp has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, just like his Lib Dem counterparts at County Hall. Yet again, they are all asleep at the wheel – as always.
According to the Association of British Drivers, ‘Wide Area 20mph Zones are a Waste of Money and Won't Save Lives….Those towns and cities such as Portsmouth where blanket 20mph zones have been imposed have not demonstrated any benefits in accident reduction — Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) actually rose in Portsmouth after implementation despite a reduction in the rest of the country. Similar reports have come in from Bristol, Oxford and Warrington. There is no demonstrable benefit from simply putting up 20mph signs and the Department for Transport have said exactly the same thing in the past. Source: http://www.abd.org.u
k/pr/795.htm.
A 2008 report prepared for Transport for London found that ‘The cost effectiveness analysis suggested that the benefits (in terms of casualties prevented) of 20 mph zones implemented in high casualty areas are greater than the costs of implementation, whereas those in low casualty areas are not. The results show that 20 mph zones become cost effective when a road has over 0.7 casualties per km.’ Source: http://www.tfl.gov.u
k/cdn/static/cms/doc
uments/20-mph-zones-
and-road-safety-in-l
ondon.pdf. Can Iain Sharpe provide relevant statistics to support his demand for 20 mph zones in Watford?
Part of the conclusion to the report stated ‘Given the increasing popularity of 20 mph zones as a method of reducing speed, there is a real need for good evidence on their impact on collision and casualty rates.’
A 2012 Department of Transport report publicised by The Sun concluded “CONTROVERSIAL 20mph speed limits designed to cut road casualties are not working, official figures show.
The 24 per cent rise in all casualties on 20 mph roads is noticeably different from the change in all other road types, most of which saw a slight fall in casualty numbers. This is actually consistent with a trend going back to at least 2007.
There are further links and comment on the same web site source https://fullfact.org
/articles/road_safet
y_20mph_zones_limits
_casualties-27766.
Overall, this evidence suggests that the case for 20 mph zones is mixed, to say the very least, and that the Liberal Democrats may be arguing in support of a policy which could end up killing and maiming more people, rather than less.
Before embarking upon another one of their vanity projects which could end up costing lives and huge emotional upset for many people, all we are asking is that they apply themselves soberly and sensibly towards evaluating the actual research evidence available elsewhere.
What is truly bizarre is to see these self-styled “liberal” advocates acting as cheer leaders for a nanny state. John Stuart Mill must be spinning in his grave. Jeremy Bentham may also be fidgeting on his seat in the LSE too right now, I imagine.
In the old testament, there is a saying about someone selling their birthright for a mess of potage. Iain Sharp and his Lib Dem chums seem utterly fixated in dumping their original liberal beliefs in order to act as cheer leaders for a new fascist nanny state.
I – like many others – am fully open-minded on the issue of speed control zones.
If irrefutable evidence can be produced as to the effectiveness of 20 mph zones in saving lives and reducing distress, I will be more than happy to support them but people like Sharp and his fellow Lib Dems seem more interested in new photo opportunities than they do in the welfare of the general public.John Dowdle

It is good to see we are all getting under Iain Sharpe’s skin, even though he lacks the courage to put his own name to his own silly rants. The link provided above to the Department of Transport is primarily guidance on how to introduce speed limit zones rather than any basis for explaining why they should be introduced. The first opening line starts ‘Speed limits should be evidence-led…’. Iain Sharp has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, just like his Lib Dem counterparts at County Hall. Yet again, they are all asleep at the wheel – as always. According to the Association of British Drivers, ‘Wide Area 20mph Zones are a Waste of Money and Won't Save Lives….Those towns and cities such as Portsmouth where blanket 20mph zones have been imposed have not demonstrated any benefits in accident reduction — Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) actually rose in Portsmouth after implementation despite a reduction in the rest of the country. Similar reports have come in from Bristol, Oxford and Warrington. There is no demonstrable benefit from simply putting up 20mph signs and the Department for Transport have said exactly the same thing in the past. Source: http://www.abd.org.u k/pr/795.htm. A 2008 report prepared for Transport for London found that ‘The cost effectiveness analysis suggested that the benefits (in terms of casualties prevented) of 20 mph zones implemented in high casualty areas are greater than the costs of implementation, whereas those in low casualty areas are not. The results show that 20 mph zones become cost effective when a road has over 0.7 casualties per km.’ Source: http://www.tfl.gov.u k/cdn/static/cms/doc uments/20-mph-zones- and-road-safety-in-l ondon.pdf. Can Iain Sharpe provide relevant statistics to support his demand for 20 mph zones in Watford? Part of the conclusion to the report stated ‘Given the increasing popularity of 20 mph zones as a method of reducing speed, there is a real need for good evidence on their impact on collision and casualty rates.’ A 2012 Department of Transport report publicised by The Sun concluded “CONTROVERSIAL 20mph speed limits designed to cut road casualties are not working, official figures show. The 24 per cent rise in all casualties on 20 mph roads is noticeably different from the change in all other road types, most of which saw a slight fall in casualty numbers. This is actually consistent with a trend going back to at least 2007. There are further links and comment on the same web site source https://fullfact.org /articles/road_safet y_20mph_zones_limits _casualties-27766. Overall, this evidence suggests that the case for 20 mph zones is mixed, to say the very least, and that the Liberal Democrats may be arguing in support of a policy which could end up killing and maiming more people, rather than less. Before embarking upon another one of their vanity projects which could end up costing lives and huge emotional upset for many people, all we are asking is that they apply themselves soberly and sensibly towards evaluating the actual research evidence available elsewhere. What is truly bizarre is to see these self-styled “liberal” advocates acting as cheer leaders for a nanny state. John Stuart Mill must be spinning in his grave. Jeremy Bentham may also be fidgeting on his seat in the LSE too right now, I imagine. In the old testament, there is a saying about someone selling their birthright for a mess of potage. Iain Sharp and his Lib Dem chums seem utterly fixated in dumping their original liberal beliefs in order to act as cheer leaders for a new fascist nanny state. I – like many others – am fully open-minded on the issue of speed control zones. If irrefutable evidence can be produced as to the effectiveness of 20 mph zones in saving lives and reducing distress, I will be more than happy to support them but people like Sharp and his fellow Lib Dems seem more interested in new photo opportunities than they do in the welfare of the general public.

Score: -3

LocalBoy1 says...6:07pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Wacko Jacko wrote…

What an ignorant lot you are. The changes in Herts policy merely serve to bring them into line with latest DfT guidance which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/setting-local-spe ed-limits There has been no move by Herts County to 'make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone' as Johnny Doodle says, the main change is to base the qualifying criteria for 20 zones on average speeds rather than 85th percentiles. The new rules say that if roads already have average speeds of 25mph or below then they could be eligible to become 20 zones, subject of course to consultation and public support. However contributors may remember that Watford Council has twice voted for the town to have default 20 limits in all residential areas. These votes attracted unanimous support from the all of the main political groups, including Greens, so Doodle is out of step on this one with his own party. Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round. It's worth noting that across much of continental Europe the speed limit in residential areas is 30KPH which is around 18MPH, I understand that this won't cut any ice with the swivel-eyed supporters of Nigel Fromage. However, for those other readers who have their heads up in the air rather than stuck somewhere dark and unmentionable, empirical evidence can be found here: http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf and on countless other road safety websites

Oiy, Oik.... "Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round". Now go and wash your mouth out with soap, stand in the corner and say sorry UKIP!. You BAD little boy!

[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote:
What an ignorant lot you are. The changes in Herts policy merely serve to bring them into line with latest DfT guidance which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/publicatio
ns/setting-local-spe
ed-limits
There has been no move by Herts County to 'make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone' as Johnny Doodle says, the main change is to base the qualifying criteria for 20 zones on average speeds rather than 85th percentiles. The new rules say that if roads already have average speeds of 25mph or below then they could be eligible to become 20 zones, subject of course to consultation and public support.
However contributors may remember that Watford Council has twice voted for the town to have default 20 limits in all residential areas. These votes attracted unanimous support from the all of the main political groups, including Greens, so Doodle is out of step on this one with his own party. Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round.
It's worth noting that across much of continental Europe the speed limit in residential areas is 30KPH which is around 18MPH, I understand that this won't cut any ice with the swivel-eyed supporters of Nigel Fromage. However, for those other readers who have their heads up in the air rather than stuck somewhere dark and unmentionable, empirical evidence can be found here: http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advice/h
ighway/info/20-mph-z
one-factsheet.pdf and on countless other road safety websites[/p][/quote]Oiy, Oik.... "Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round". Now go and wash your mouth out with soap, stand in the corner and say sorry UKIP!. You BAD little boy!LocalBoy1

Wacko Jacko wrote…

What an ignorant lot you are. The changes in Herts policy merely serve to bring them into line with latest DfT guidance which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/setting-local-spe ed-limits There has been no move by Herts County to 'make the entire county area - including main roads - one big school zone' as Johnny Doodle says, the main change is to base the qualifying criteria for 20 zones on average speeds rather than 85th percentiles. The new rules say that if roads already have average speeds of 25mph or below then they could be eligible to become 20 zones, subject of course to consultation and public support. However contributors may remember that Watford Council has twice voted for the town to have default 20 limits in all residential areas. These votes attracted unanimous support from the all of the main political groups, including Greens, so Doodle is out of step on this one with his own party. Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round. It's worth noting that across much of continental Europe the speed limit in residential areas is 30KPH which is around 18MPH, I understand that this won't cut any ice with the swivel-eyed supporters of Nigel Fromage. However, for those other readers who have their heads up in the air rather than stuck somewhere dark and unmentionable, empirical evidence can be found here: http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advice/h ighway/info/20-mph-z one-factsheet.pdf and on countless other road safety websites

Oiy, Oik.... "Of course the UKIP loony fringe didn't vote for it because they don't have any borough councillors and are unlikely to gain any this time round". Now go and wash your mouth out with soap, stand in the corner and say sorry UKIP!. You BAD little boy!

Score: -4

Nascot says...8:34pm Fri 25 Apr 14

garston tony wrote…

I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea

Wrong: Suggest you refer to: http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /20mph-roads-emissio ns.html ..and I quote: Cutting the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on the wrong roads can increase CO2 emissions by more than 10% with the result that well-intentioned safety schemes may backfire in environmental terms. On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon (1.3 miles/litre). Over a year this will significantly increase CO2 emissions – burning 1 litre of unleaded petrol produces 2.36kg of CO2.

[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote:
I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea[/p][/quote]Wrong: Suggest you refer to:
http://www.theaa.com
/public_affairs/news
/20mph-roads-emissio
ns.html
..and I quote:
Cutting the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on the wrong roads can increase CO2 emissions by more than 10% with the result that well-intentioned safety schemes may backfire in environmental terms.
On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon (1.3 miles/litre). Over a year this will significantly increase CO2 emissions – burning 1 litre of unleaded petrol produces 2.36kg of CO2.Nascot

garston tony wrote…

I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea

Wrong: Suggest you refer to: http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /20mph-roads-emissio ns.html ..and I quote: Cutting the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on the wrong roads can increase CO2 emissions by more than 10% with the result that well-intentioned safety schemes may backfire in environmental terms. On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon (1.3 miles/litre). Over a year this will significantly increase CO2 emissions – burning 1 litre of unleaded petrol produces 2.36kg of CO2.

Score: 0

Nascot says...8:42pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Nascot wrote…

garston tony wrote…

I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea

Wrong: Suggest you refer to: http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /20mph-roads-emissio ns.html ..and I quote: Cutting the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on the wrong roads can increase CO2 emissions by more than 10% with the result that well-intentioned safety schemes may backfire in environmental terms. On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon (1.3 miles/litre). Over a year this will significantly increase CO2 emissions – burning 1 litre of unleaded petrol produces 2.36kg of CO2.

P.S. to the above. From the very same web-page In 2000, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions argued against reducing the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions. Suggest you buy shares is drug companies that produce Asthma products.

[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea[/p][/quote]Wrong: Suggest you refer to: http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /20mph-roads-emissio ns.html ..and I quote: Cutting the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on the wrong roads can increase CO2 emissions by more than 10% with the result that well-intentioned safety schemes may backfire in environmental terms. On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon (1.3 miles/litre). Over a year this will significantly increase CO2 emissions – burning 1 litre of unleaded petrol produces 2.36kg of CO2.[/p][/quote]P.S. to the above. From the very same web-page
In 2000, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions argued against reducing the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions.
Suggest you buy shares is drug companies that produce Asthma products.Nascot

Nascot wrote…

garston tony wrote…

I agree that reckless drivers are not going to dissapear overnight when 20mph limits come into effect, but by the same token in Watford on many roads its rarely possible to get above 20mph anyway as it is so hardly worth moaning about! But by the by from things mentioned by a friend on the continent who lives in an area where reduced speed limits have been introduced, I think 30kmph, drives have found by all accounts they are using 10%+ less fuel due to the lower speeds and less frantic braking. The ultimate test surely is does it reduce the numbers of death and injuries on the road and again i'm led to believe it does so on that basis alone this isnt a bad idea

Wrong: Suggest you refer to: http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /20mph-roads-emissio ns.html ..and I quote: Cutting the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on the wrong roads can increase CO2 emissions by more than 10% with the result that well-intentioned safety schemes may backfire in environmental terms. On average, petrol car fuel consumption on longer and relatively free-flowing 20mph urban streets can worsen by 5.8 miles per gallon (1.3 miles/litre). Over a year this will significantly increase CO2 emissions – burning 1 litre of unleaded petrol produces 2.36kg of CO2.

P.S. to the above. From the very same web-page In 2000, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions argued against reducing the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions. Suggest you buy shares is drug companies that produce Asthma products.

Score: -2

Wacko Jacko says...9:15pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Doodle's stance on 20mph limits comes as something of a surprise when it was his Greens who kicked off the whole debate 2 years back in Watford Council, and supported unanimously by the other main parties. As we all know there are so many statistics on so many different examples with different interpretations that in the end it comes down to who and what you choose to believe. A bit like religion. However relying on 'evidence' from the Association of British Drivers who are a blatantly pro-driving pressure group hardly adds anything credible to the debate, and then quoting the Sun newspaper, that hotbed of reaction is truly bizarre. You might as well quote Jeremy Clarkson. What Diddle and his fellow negative commentators fail to recognise is that the 20 campaign is as much to do with quality of life as it is to do with road safety. Yes slower road speeds will make the likelihood and severity of accidents much less, but just as importantly it will lower noise and pollution levels for residents, and will make road use much more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users. As for Jeremy Bentham, the last I heard his mummified head was still on display at the university he founded - UCL - not at the LSE, which was founded in 1895, 63 years after Bentham was mummified. You need to check your research, John. And by the way who is this Ian Sharpe character? never heard of him, so keep on guessing.

Doodle's stance on 20mph limits comes as something of a surprise when it was his Greens who kicked off the whole debate 2 years back in Watford Council, and supported unanimously by the other main parties.
As we all know there are so many statistics on so many different examples with different interpretations that in the end it comes down to who and what you choose to believe. A bit like religion.
However relying on 'evidence' from the Association of British Drivers who are a blatantly pro-driving pressure group hardly adds anything credible to the debate, and then quoting the Sun newspaper, that hotbed of reaction is truly bizarre. You might as well quote Jeremy Clarkson.
What Diddle and his fellow negative commentators fail to recognise is that the 20 campaign is as much to do with quality of life as it is to do with road safety. Yes slower road speeds will make the likelihood and severity of accidents much less, but just as importantly it will lower noise and pollution levels for residents, and will make road use much more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
As for Jeremy Bentham, the last I heard his mummified head was still on display at the university he founded - UCL - not at the LSE, which was founded in 1895, 63 years after Bentham was mummified.
You need to check your research, John. And by the way who is this Ian Sharpe character? never heard of him, so keep on guessing.Wacko Jacko

Doodle's stance on 20mph limits comes as something of a surprise when it was his Greens who kicked off the whole debate 2 years back in Watford Council, and supported unanimously by the other main parties. As we all know there are so many statistics on so many different examples with different interpretations that in the end it comes down to who and what you choose to believe. A bit like religion. However relying on 'evidence' from the Association of British Drivers who are a blatantly pro-driving pressure group hardly adds anything credible to the debate, and then quoting the Sun newspaper, that hotbed of reaction is truly bizarre. You might as well quote Jeremy Clarkson. What Diddle and his fellow negative commentators fail to recognise is that the 20 campaign is as much to do with quality of life as it is to do with road safety. Yes slower road speeds will make the likelihood and severity of accidents much less, but just as importantly it will lower noise and pollution levels for residents, and will make road use much more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users. As for Jeremy Bentham, the last I heard his mummified head was still on display at the university he founded - UCL - not at the LSE, which was founded in 1895, 63 years after Bentham was mummified. You need to check your research, John. And by the way who is this Ian Sharpe character? never heard of him, so keep on guessing.

Score: 1

John Dowdle says...9:43pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Iain, again you are unable to provide any worthwhile empirical evidence. You are partly - but only partly - correct about Jeremy Bentham. His entire stuffed body is kept at UCL and can be viewed there - not just his head. I am happy - as stated before - to support anything that will reduce road traffic accidents, casualties and general distress but before making any decisions I need to see proper empirical evidence. What you failed to understand about The Sun report is that it is based on actual Department of Transport research. I would much rather take anything they say than your say-so - any day. It may be that you are not a car driver, which may explain why you fail to understand that drivers drive according to the circumstances of the road. Even where there are 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph limits, this does not mean that all drivers drive at those maximum speeds. Unlike you, we usually drive at speeds below the maximums to allow for road conditions. I am sure you have never heard this from anyone before, which may explain your natural ignorance of these simple road driving facts. Go Iain, keep on denying it is you. Notice one thing: I have deliberately used the incorrect surname Sharp but you have used the correct surname of Sharpe above. What does that tell anyone - other than you are a fool? A simple alternative would be for you to have the courage and veracity to actually use your real name. However, no one will hold their breath waiting for you to expose yourself.

Iain, again you are unable to provide any worthwhile empirical evidence.
You are partly - but only partly - correct about Jeremy Bentham. His entire stuffed body is kept at UCL and can be viewed there - not just his head.
I am happy - as stated before - to support anything that will reduce road traffic accidents, casualties and general distress but before making any decisions I need to see proper empirical evidence.
What you failed to understand about The Sun report is that it is based on actual Department of Transport research.
I would much rather take anything they say than your say-so - any day.
It may be that you are not a car driver, which may explain why you fail to understand that drivers drive according to the circumstances of the road.
Even where there are 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph limits, this does not mean that all drivers drive at those maximum speeds. Unlike you, we usually drive at speeds below the maximums to allow for road conditions.
I am sure you have never heard this from anyone before, which may explain your natural ignorance of these simple road driving facts.
Go Iain, keep on denying it is you. Notice one thing: I have deliberately used the incorrect surname Sharp but you have used the correct surname of Sharpe above. What does that tell anyone - other than you are a fool?
A simple alternative would be for you to have the courage and veracity to actually use your real name.
However, no one will hold their breath waiting for you to expose yourself.John Dowdle

Iain, again you are unable to provide any worthwhile empirical evidence. You are partly - but only partly - correct about Jeremy Bentham. His entire stuffed body is kept at UCL and can be viewed there - not just his head. I am happy - as stated before - to support anything that will reduce road traffic accidents, casualties and general distress but before making any decisions I need to see proper empirical evidence. What you failed to understand about The Sun report is that it is based on actual Department of Transport research. I would much rather take anything they say than your say-so - any day. It may be that you are not a car driver, which may explain why you fail to understand that drivers drive according to the circumstances of the road. Even where there are 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph limits, this does not mean that all drivers drive at those maximum speeds. Unlike you, we usually drive at speeds below the maximums to allow for road conditions. I am sure you have never heard this from anyone before, which may explain your natural ignorance of these simple road driving facts. Go Iain, keep on denying it is you. Notice one thing: I have deliberately used the incorrect surname Sharp but you have used the correct surname of Sharpe above. What does that tell anyone - other than you are a fool? A simple alternative would be for you to have the courage and veracity to actually use your real name. However, no one will hold their breath waiting for you to expose yourself.

Score: -2

D_Penn says...10:16pm Fri 25 Apr 14

@Wacko Jacko You said: "What Diddle and his fellow negative commentators fail to recognise is that the 20 campaign is as much to do with quality of life as it is to do with road safety. Yes slower road speeds will make the likelihood and severity of accidents much less, but just as importantly it will lower noise and pollution levels for residents, and will make road use much more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users." What a load of twaddle. Lib Dems want 20 mph to improve 'quality of life'? This from a party that crams people into rabbit-hutch flats that they squish onto every square inch of land and green space they can find. I'd be laughing if it wasn't such a hypocritical, disgraceful waste of money. This 20mph campaign is only about gesture politics - Lib Dems trying to say 'Look at us, aren't we such very nice people.' The truth is that they are happy to throw money at a scheme where there is not a shred of evidence that it will do any good whatsoever. If there is money to be spent, there are plenty of areas where it could be put to good use to make a measurable difference to people's lives, but as that would not give the nice media inches that the twenty mile an hour campaign generates, the Lib Dems are certain to throw our hard earned dosh at a half-baked scheme that will do no more than keep cars on the road for longer creating even more congestion and pollution in Watford for no gain. It's time to send all these Lib Dems packing and let our Council be run by people who now how to spend our money wisely on necessary projects that have proven benefits rather than self-promoting, vanity schemes.

@Wacko Jacko
You said:
"What Diddle and his fellow negative commentators fail to recognise is that the 20 campaign is as much to do with quality of life as it is to do with road safety. Yes slower road speeds will make the likelihood and severity of accidents much less, but just as importantly it will lower noise and pollution levels for residents, and will make road use much more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users."
What a load of twaddle.
Lib Dems want 20 mph to improve 'quality of life'? This from a party that crams people into rabbit-hutch flats that they squish onto every square inch of land and green space they can find. I'd be laughing if it wasn't such a hypocritical, disgraceful waste of money.
This 20mph campaign is only about gesture politics - Lib Dems trying to say 'Look at us, aren't we such very nice people.' The truth is that they are happy to throw money at a scheme where there is not a shred of evidence that it will do any good whatsoever. If there is money to be spent, there are plenty of areas where it could be put to good use to make a measurable difference to people's lives, but as that would not give the nice media inches that the twenty mile an hour campaign generates, the Lib Dems are certain to throw our hard earned dosh at a half-baked scheme that will do no more than keep cars on the road for longer creating even more congestion and pollution in Watford for no gain.
It's time to send all these Lib Dems packing and let our Council be run by people who now how to spend our money wisely on necessary projects that have proven benefits rather than self-promoting, vanity schemes.D_Penn

@Wacko Jacko You said: "What Diddle and his fellow negative commentators fail to recognise is that the 20 campaign is as much to do with quality of life as it is to do with road safety. Yes slower road speeds will make the likelihood and severity of accidents much less, but just as importantly it will lower noise and pollution levels for residents, and will make road use much more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users." What a load of twaddle. Lib Dems want 20 mph to improve 'quality of life'? This from a party that crams people into rabbit-hutch flats that they squish onto every square inch of land and green space they can find. I'd be laughing if it wasn't such a hypocritical, disgraceful waste of money. This 20mph campaign is only about gesture politics - Lib Dems trying to say 'Look at us, aren't we such very nice people.' The truth is that they are happy to throw money at a scheme where there is not a shred of evidence that it will do any good whatsoever. If there is money to be spent, there are plenty of areas where it could be put to good use to make a measurable difference to people's lives, but as that would not give the nice media inches that the twenty mile an hour campaign generates, the Lib Dems are certain to throw our hard earned dosh at a half-baked scheme that will do no more than keep cars on the road for longer creating even more congestion and pollution in Watford for no gain. It's time to send all these Lib Dems packing and let our Council be run by people who now how to spend our money wisely on necessary projects that have proven benefits rather than self-promoting, vanity schemes.

Score: -2

D_Penn says...12:25am Sat 26 Apr 14

Incidentally, a case in point. Look at yet another accident at the notorious Hempstead Road/Courtlands Drive junction that has just been reported in the WO.... http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/11 172505._Nothing_will _be_done_until_someo ne_dies____neighbour s_react_to_another_c rash_in_Watford_road / This is a place where money should be spent on improving safety as there is a clearly identifiable problem (and note that the 20mph limit scheme would not affect this junction's problems one iota). Perhaps if the '20mph' obsessed people at County and Watford Council had concentrated effort and money on fixing real problems such as this instead of playing poseur politics, then these accidents might have been avoided. Isn't it time we elected some adults to make the proper decisions around here?

Incidentally, a case in point. Look at yet another accident at the notorious Hempstead Road/Courtlands Drive junction that has just been reported in the WO....
http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/11
172505._Nothing_will
_be_done_until_someo
ne_dies____neighbour
s_react_to_another_c
rash_in_Watford_road
/
This is a place where money should be spent on improving safety as there is a clearly identifiable problem (and note that the 20mph limit scheme would not affect this junction's problems one iota).
Perhaps if the '20mph' obsessed people at County and Watford Council had concentrated effort and money on fixing real problems such as this instead of playing poseur politics, then these accidents might have been avoided.
Isn't it time we elected some adults to make the proper decisions around here?D_Penn

Incidentally, a case in point. Look at yet another accident at the notorious Hempstead Road/Courtlands Drive junction that has just been reported in the WO.... http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/11 172505._Nothing_will _be_done_until_someo ne_dies____neighbour s_react_to_another_c rash_in_Watford_road / This is a place where money should be spent on improving safety as there is a clearly identifiable problem (and note that the 20mph limit scheme would not affect this junction's problems one iota). Perhaps if the '20mph' obsessed people at County and Watford Council had concentrated effort and money on fixing real problems such as this instead of playing poseur politics, then these accidents might have been avoided. Isn't it time we elected some adults to make the proper decisions around here?

Score: 0

LocalBoy1 says...12:52am Sat 26 Apr 14

We don't need to reduce the speed limit to 20mph, we need to teach suicidal pedestrians who think that cars can stop in an instant at a crossings or in moving traffic to think again!. Pedestrians who also walk straight out with their mobile phone glued to their ear, not looking to see if the driver is going to stop. They assume that once their foot is on the crossing or they walk out into moving traffic that they are protected by an invisible shied. In my nearly 50yrs of driving everything from 40tonne bendy trucks to super bikes I have never known such poor, careless pedestrian road sense including children who don't seem to have been taught any road sense at all. Driving through town these days I am more concerned about being run into by a pedestrian than another car!. NOW... there will always be the NUT NUT who breaks the law, drives like a maniac and usually causes injury. 20mph speed limit wont bother that driver at all... STOP blaming drivers for pedestrian carelessness! There used to be something called the Green Cross Code taught at schools, to teach children how to cross the road safely. GONE isn't it?. Finally, my instinct for self preservation is so inbuilt that there in NO way I cross the road until I make sure the driver has seen me and STOPPED. I can't be the only one who takes this sensible precaution, am I?

We don't need to reduce the speed limit to 20mph, we need to teach suicidal pedestrians who think that cars can stop in an instant at a crossings or in moving traffic to think again!. Pedestrians who also walk straight out with their mobile phone glued to their ear, not looking to see if the driver is going to stop. They assume that once their foot is on the crossing or they walk out into moving traffic that they are protected by an invisible shied. In my nearly 50yrs of driving everything from 40tonne bendy trucks to super bikes I have never known such poor, careless pedestrian road sense including children who don't seem to have been taught any road sense at all. Driving through town these days I am more concerned about being run into by a pedestrian than another car!. NOW... there will always be the NUT NUT who breaks the law, drives like a maniac and usually causes injury. 20mph speed limit wont bother that driver at all... STOP blaming drivers for pedestrian carelessness! There used to be something called the Green Cross Code taught at schools, to teach children how to cross the road safely. GONE isn't it?. Finally, my instinct for self preservation is so inbuilt that there in NO way I cross the road until I make sure the driver has seen me and STOPPED. I can't be the only one who takes this sensible precaution, am I?LocalBoy1

We don't need to reduce the speed limit to 20mph, we need to teach suicidal pedestrians who think that cars can stop in an instant at a crossings or in moving traffic to think again!. Pedestrians who also walk straight out with their mobile phone glued to their ear, not looking to see if the driver is going to stop. They assume that once their foot is on the crossing or they walk out into moving traffic that they are protected by an invisible shied. In my nearly 50yrs of driving everything from 40tonne bendy trucks to super bikes I have never known such poor, careless pedestrian road sense including children who don't seem to have been taught any road sense at all. Driving through town these days I am more concerned about being run into by a pedestrian than another car!. NOW... there will always be the NUT NUT who breaks the law, drives like a maniac and usually causes injury. 20mph speed limit wont bother that driver at all... STOP blaming drivers for pedestrian carelessness! There used to be something called the Green Cross Code taught at schools, to teach children how to cross the road safely. GONE isn't it?. Finally, my instinct for self preservation is so inbuilt that there in NO way I cross the road until I make sure the driver has seen me and STOPPED. I can't be the only one who takes this sensible precaution, am I?

Score: -5

Wacko Jacko says...11:10am Sat 26 Apr 14

LocalBoy1 wrote…

We don't need to reduce the speed limit to 20mph, we need to teach suicidal pedestrians who think that cars can stop in an instant at a crossings or in moving traffic to think again!. Pedestrians who also walk straight out with their mobile phone glued to their ear, not looking to see if the driver is going to stop. They assume that once their foot is on the crossing or they walk out into moving traffic that they are protected by an invisible shied. In my nearly 50yrs of driving everything from 40tonne bendy trucks to super bikes I have never known such poor, careless pedestrian road sense including children who don't seem to have been taught any road sense at all. Driving through town these days I am more concerned about being run into by a pedestrian than another car!. NOW... there will always be the NUT NUT who breaks the law, drives like a maniac and usually causes injury. 20mph speed limit wont bother that driver at all... STOP blaming drivers for pedestrian carelessness! There used to be something called the Green Cross Code taught at schools, to teach children how to cross the road safely. GONE isn't it?. Finally, my instinct for self preservation is so inbuilt that there in NO way I cross the road until I make sure the driver has seen me and STOPPED. I can't be the only one who takes this sensible precaution, am I?

So it's all the pedestrian's fault, and probably the cyclists too, never the drivers. As someone who drives, cycles and walks I believe in achieving a fair balance between all road users. 20mph limits in residential areas goes a long way towards this. Would someone like to explain why reducing the speed limit disadvantages the motorist? it certainly benefits the non motorised road users and local residents.

[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote:
We don't need to reduce the speed limit to 20mph, we need to teach suicidal pedestrians who think that cars can stop in an instant at a crossings or in moving traffic to think again!. Pedestrians who also walk straight out with their mobile phone glued to their ear, not looking to see if the driver is going to stop. They assume that once their foot is on the crossing or they walk out into moving traffic that they are protected by an invisible shied. In my nearly 50yrs of driving everything from 40tonne bendy trucks to super bikes I have never known such poor, careless pedestrian road sense including children who don't seem to have been taught any road sense at all. Driving through town these days I am more concerned about being run into by a pedestrian than another car!. NOW... there will always be the NUT NUT who breaks the law, drives like a maniac and usually causes injury. 20mph speed limit wont bother that driver at all... STOP blaming drivers for pedestrian carelessness! There used to be something called the Green Cross Code taught at schools, to teach children how to cross the road safely. GONE isn't it?. Finally, my instinct for self preservation is so inbuilt that there in NO way I cross the road until I make sure the driver has seen me and STOPPED. I can't be the only one who takes this sensible precaution, am I?[/p][/quote]So it's all the pedestrian's fault, and probably the cyclists too, never the drivers.
As someone who drives, cycles and walks I believe in achieving a fair balance between all road users. 20mph limits in residential areas goes a long way towards this.
Would someone like to explain why reducing the speed limit disadvantages the motorist? it certainly benefits the non motorised road users and local residents.Wacko Jacko

LocalBoy1 wrote…

We don't need to reduce the speed limit to 20mph, we need to teach suicidal pedestrians who think that cars can stop in an instant at a crossings or in moving traffic to think again!. Pedestrians who also walk straight out with their mobile phone glued to their ear, not looking to see if the driver is going to stop. They assume that once their foot is on the crossing or they walk out into moving traffic that they are protected by an invisible shied. In my nearly 50yrs of driving everything from 40tonne bendy trucks to super bikes I have never known such poor, careless pedestrian road sense including children who don't seem to have been taught any road sense at all. Driving through town these days I am more concerned about being run into by a pedestrian than another car!. NOW... there will always be the NUT NUT who breaks the law, drives like a maniac and usually causes injury. 20mph speed limit wont bother that driver at all... STOP blaming drivers for pedestrian carelessness! There used to be something called the Green Cross Code taught at schools, to teach children how to cross the road safely. GONE isn't it?. Finally, my instinct for self preservation is so inbuilt that there in NO way I cross the road until I make sure the driver has seen me and STOPPED. I can't be the only one who takes this sensible precaution, am I?

So it's all the pedestrian's fault, and probably the cyclists too, never the drivers. As someone who drives, cycles and walks I believe in achieving a fair balance between all road users. 20mph limits in residential areas goes a long way towards this. Would someone like to explain why reducing the speed limit disadvantages the motorist? it certainly benefits the non motorised road users and local residents.

Score: 2

LocalBoy1 says...11:50am Sat 26 Apr 14

@Wacko Jacko So it's all the pedestrian's fault, and probably the cyclists too, never the drivers. As someone who drives, cycles and walks I believe in achieving a fair balance between all road users. 20mph limits in residential areas goes a long way towards this. Would someone like to explain why reducing the speed limit disadvantages the motorist? it certainly benefits the non motorised road users and local residents........... .................... ... I expected the above sort of comment, naïve as it is. NO it is not all the pedestrians fault, you talk about a balance? I don't see this in your comment. My view is simply a view from behind the wheel. My view! As for achieving a balance between cyclist, pedestrian and motorists. It ain't never gonna happen. Too much of everything crammed into too smaller space. Bus lanes, cycle lanes and vehicles all fighting for space in many cases that was originally designed for the horse and cart. What I am saying is that with the excessive volume of road users is that pedestrians need to be much more vigilant. At the moment pedestrians and cyclists (no protective or reflective gear) seem now to have a death wish!

@Wacko Jacko
So it's all the pedestrian's fault, and probably the cyclists too, never the drivers.
As someone who drives, cycles and walks I believe in achieving a fair balance between all road users. 20mph limits in residential areas goes a long way towards this.
Would someone like to explain why reducing the speed limit disadvantages the motorist? it certainly benefits the non motorised road users and local residents...........
....................
... I expected the above sort of comment, naïve as it is. NO it is not all the pedestrians fault, you talk about a balance? I don't see this in your comment. My view is simply a view from behind the wheel. My view! As for achieving a balance between cyclist, pedestrian and motorists. It ain't never gonna happen. Too much of everything crammed into too smaller space. Bus lanes, cycle lanes and vehicles all fighting for space in many cases that was originally designed for the horse and cart. What I am saying is that with the excessive volume of road users is that pedestrians need to be much more vigilant. At the moment pedestrians and cyclists (no protective or reflective gear) seem now to have a death wish!LocalBoy1

@Wacko Jacko So it's all the pedestrian's fault, and probably the cyclists too, never the drivers. As someone who drives, cycles and walks I believe in achieving a fair balance between all road users. 20mph limits in residential areas goes a long way towards this. Would someone like to explain why reducing the speed limit disadvantages the motorist? it certainly benefits the non motorised road users and local residents........... .................... ... I expected the above sort of comment, naïve as it is. NO it is not all the pedestrians fault, you talk about a balance? I don't see this in your comment. My view is simply a view from behind the wheel. My view! As for achieving a balance between cyclist, pedestrian and motorists. It ain't never gonna happen. Too much of everything crammed into too smaller space. Bus lanes, cycle lanes and vehicles all fighting for space in many cases that was originally designed for the horse and cart. What I am saying is that with the excessive volume of road users is that pedestrians need to be much more vigilant. At the moment pedestrians and cyclists (no protective or reflective gear) seem now to have a death wish!

Score: -3

Bobbio says...1:31pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Pedestrians have their fair share of blame for accidents involving them. As has already been said they walk along glued to their phones only vaguely aware of where they are and totally unaware of traffic dangers. Then there are the pedestrian suicides, in the past hard to prove, but now with more and more vehicles being fitted with dash-cams easier to prove. I know of one company that operates a large fleet of vans and lorries all fitted with dash cams who can now prove two suicides a year involving pedestrians and their trucks. Stop blaming the driver, pedestrians often do stupid things

Pedestrians have their fair share of blame for accidents involving them. As has already been said they walk along glued to their phones only vaguely aware of where they are and totally unaware of traffic dangers. Then there are the pedestrian suicides, in the past hard to prove, but now with more and more vehicles being fitted with dash-cams easier to prove. I know of one company that operates a large fleet of vans and lorries all fitted with dash cams who can now prove two suicides a year involving pedestrians and their trucks. Stop blaming the driver, pedestrians often do stupid thingsBobbio

Pedestrians have their fair share of blame for accidents involving them. As has already been said they walk along glued to their phones only vaguely aware of where they are and totally unaware of traffic dangers. Then there are the pedestrian suicides, in the past hard to prove, but now with more and more vehicles being fitted with dash-cams easier to prove. I know of one company that operates a large fleet of vans and lorries all fitted with dash cams who can now prove two suicides a year involving pedestrians and their trucks. Stop blaming the driver, pedestrians often do stupid things

Score: 0

LocalBoy1 says...7:04pm Sat 10 May 14

These amendments have been welcomed by the county’s Liberal Democrats. Well, that's it in a nutshell. The Lib Dem run Watford Council MUST get their own way at any cost. Dictators have to win! The pond, the allotments, 700 dwellings. Charter Place. What do the people of Watford think? WHO??

These amendments have been welcomed by the county’s Liberal Democrats. Well, that's it in a nutshell. The Lib Dem run Watford Council MUST get their own way at any cost. Dictators have to win! The pond, the allotments, 700 dwellings. Charter Place. What do the people of Watford think? WHO??LocalBoy1

These amendments have been welcomed by the county’s Liberal Democrats. Well, that's it in a nutshell. The Lib Dem run Watford Council MUST get their own way at any cost. Dictators have to win! The pond, the allotments, 700 dwellings. Charter Place. What do the people of Watford think? WHO??

Score: 0

LocalBoy1 says...7:07pm Sat 10 May 14

Oh blimey. This is an old topic and have already made a comment. Sorry folks.

Oh blimey. This is an old topic and have already made a comment. Sorry folks.LocalBoy1

Oh blimey. This is an old topic and have already made a comment. Sorry folks.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here